Bitter fig?

Or Bitter Murloc?

Unless the attack is one which is normalized (which most 2-handed attacks are not) top end matters. The slower a weapon, the better it is. Thi is in a LOT of ways.

1: damage on most attacks is based on a single swing. The slower the weapon, the bigger the top AND bottom end of damage. A 1.5 speed dagger getting an extra attack does 50% the damage of a 3.0 weapon on that attack on average.

2: enchant procs on PPM care, a lot. Instant attacks use the percentage set by the base speed. If a weapon only swings 15 times and it is supposed to proc 3 times in a minute, there is a 20% chance per swing. Instants get to use that 20% chance too. Now if the weapon is swining 21 tikes in a minute it goes from 1/5 to 1/7. The instant attack take the same hit.

Okay so maybe 2 is a couple and not a lot. But they are big ways.
I have often refused to take a "better" but faster weapon because it ends up not being much of an upgrade.

I won't replace a 359 with this thing, just not worth the cost.

To expand on Angus' point, the core DPS abilities of the following specs are all very concerned with top end weapon damage (regardless of the weapon type) - Arms Warrior, Frost DK, Ret Paladin, and Enhancement Shaman. I believe Fury Warriors and Unholy DKs are also interested it, but perhaps not to the same extent that the previous specs are. Essentially, the less important white damage is to your total damage output the more important top end weapon damage is to you. For example, three main attacks of an Arms warrior (Mortal Strike, Overpower, and Colossus Smash) are all based on 150%, 125%, and 150% weapon damage, respectively. For Ret paladins it's even more exaggerated - their basic Holy Power generator, Crusader Strike, is based on 135% weapon damage and their finisher, Templar's Verdict, does 235% weapon damage with 3 Holy Power. That's before additional modifiers such as glyphs, set bonuses, and mastery.

%#$%@%$%$@&%$$@%! (I've moved on from murloc cursing to Beetle Baily swearing)

No, Angus, 'top end' is still meaningless. Your point #1 is why Average Weapon Damage matters, not why 'top end' matters. Your point #2 is why Weapon Speed matters. Both are correct, but have next-to-zippo to do with 'top end.'

Slower is better, sure. Most attacks are normalised in the sense that their attack power scaling is based on a fixed attack speed (3.2 for 2h, iirc), but they use Average Weapon Damage as well, so slower is better. The effect in itself isn't major (not in the way totally non-normalised attacks would be), but it's a clear dps increase to have a weapon with a higher base damage. You nailed the proc part with PPM benefiting a slower weapon more.

However, 'top end' is this useless thing some nitwit thought up. Again, the only number anyone ought to care about is the average of top and bottom, which is equal to DPS*Speed. Base damage. Heck, that's even 3 characters shorter than 'top end.' It's more accurate than the 'top end' nonsense, plus it might actually help someone understand the reasons why slower weapons are better.

I think what gets to me most is that Angus understands why base damage, average damage, weapon speed, etc matter, but still insists on using the inane neologism 'top end.' I'm almost off my rocker over the absurd "inscriptionist" when the shorter, elegant, and correct inscriber and scribe are available (scrivener if you're feeling poetic), but that's "just" ignorance of language. 'Top end' is bad language, plus the potential to spread bad information.

Figgy, I can call you Figgy right?

Top end does indeed matter. 2 weapons that have the same Average DPS but different speeds do NOT perform the same, the slower weapon will ALWAYS perform BETTER. Top end is DIRECTLY RELATED TO WEAPON SPEED. Since instant attacks are based on the weapon's damage the slower weapon (which has the higher top end to keep the average DPS equal) will do MORE DAMAGE than the faster one.

Eg. Reclaimed Ashkandi and Shalag'doom are both 359 ilvl, both have 623.3 average DPS, both have 341 strength and 228 crit, both have a precision based secondary stat at 228. However, Reclaimed Ashkandi will put out significantly higher DPS than Shalag'doom due to it's higher top end (as we are assuming both properly gemmed and 26 expertise and 8% hit while using a single weapon), the higher damage range makes those instants hit harder, especially when you add in the other bonuses you are bound to have (like 3% increased critical strike damage from your Meta). With some specs, "white damage" is not nearly as big a part of overall DPS as "yellow damage".

Also, would you rather see a 30k crit or a 40k crit? If you need to burst something down (like a boss's shield or some pesky add that explodes) your instant attacks become much more important, making the top end gap much more noticeable.

Because the phrase "top end" means a 1-4000 sword is better (4k top end) than a 2000-3500 sword (3500 top end), even if they have the same speed.

Numbers made up of course, but he's simply saying that the average damage is what you should be looking for since that's what you'll average, not the highest number it can give since that doesn't automatically mean "more" on average.

Dug through wowhead, and bliz is wicked sharp these days about a normalised damage range on weapons, with bottom end being 0.8*speed*dps, and top end being 1.2*speed*dps. There are a few exceptions, but most conform to that formula these days.

Top end remains a more fraught term than average damage (that is, speed*dps), since that 1.2 modifier isn't set in stone. There's no reason why it couldn't be 0.6 and 1.4 and still have the same average damage, so if bliz ever changes those modifiers, top end will truly be meaningless. However, in the short term, a minor mea culpa. Of course, no one else pointed out that bliz had standardised the damage ranges, so I'll withhold gold stars from anyone else...