Yes — Scragmuncher was cherry-picking.Some interesting ideas here, but when I look at the warband data for the last 2 months or so, I see BW's consistently matching if not beating other dps classes.
For what I can see they are more than able to keep up with the other 2 main aoe dps classes.
Here’s why in plain terms:
• The thread covered BW/Sorc across all contexts (solo, 6v6, roaming, below-average warbands, blob warbands).
• Almost every poster pointed out problems: squishy, low utility, over-reliance on crit that is countered by absorbs, clunky casts, poor fillers, self-damage with no upside.
• You (Bozzax) even broke it down: weak in solo, weak in 6v6, weak in small groups, “average” only in strong organized warbands, and just “ok” in pug-stomping blobs.
Instead of engaging with that full picture, Scragmuncher only cited prime-time blob warband killboard stats — the one environment where BW looks competitive because AoE damage farming inflates numbers.
That is the textbook definition of cherry-picking: selecting the single most favorable data point while ignoring the broader set of evidence that shows weakness elsewhere.
So yes, he cherry-picked by narrowing the discussion down to blob logs and using that to imply BW is “fine overall.”
Lastly, the monthly and weekly killboards (killboard.returnofreckoning.com) actually contradict the point you’re making. If BWs/Sorcs were “fine overall,” we would expect to see them feature regularly at the top — yet to my knowledge they almost never do. That’s the same dataset you’re citing, but viewed in a wider scope.
Another way to test whether a class is “fine overall” is to look at whether players keep investing time into it. The yearly CR/RR80 Arch Order RDPS numbers tell a different story:

This suggests that players themselves don’t view BW/Sorc as competitive enough to justify the grind compared to other ranged DPS.