It will likely cause more confusion to tuck the WFRP system into a thread titled Warhammer 40k. That and it being a different game system...
I think you need to break this down into separate systems, because that is what they are rather than a single ‘Warhammer system’.
It’s a bit like saying ‘How do you feel about the Cthulhu system?’ and then lumping Call of Cthulhu, Trail of Cthulhu, Achtung Cthulhu and so on all together.
Including Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which is very much its own thing, creates further confusion.
I have to agree with @overgeeked - best to include them separately. I actually peeked into this thread to see the links and see when I missed WFRP (which I would comment on).
TBH, I didn't even know that 40k had an RPG, although it doesn't surprise me. I just always think of it as the miniatures. But WFRP (especially with some of the ... disparate editions) will definitely get some opinions.
I also believe it is good to separate the systems. For me, the WFRP (4e) is between ok and pretty good. But 40k is awful.
Edit: Specifying which edition of WFRP I refer, since the system changed lots at each edition.
I'm not going to separate them out. If you can't vote, that's fine--but a more constructive path forward would be to vote for whichever one you feel strongest about, and then leave a comment explaining which one(s) you are voting for. Or just skip the vote altogether, and write a bit about your experience with the Warhammers of your choice.Cannot vote. You need the separate FFG 40k from Wrath & Glory, as others have said.
My biggest memory of doing such a thing like that was when I saw the Warhammer Fantasy Bretonnia book. Like, the VERY first Bretonnia army supplement when they first came out.Come to think of it, it seems like a lot of my RPG buys are for reading, not actually playing... hmm.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.