>>96861312
>Okay and you like or dislike that?
I do appreciate it, malleable symbols like these help a lot in building a recognisable visual language, and there's a very purposeful direction with HoH to give them almost exclusively hard lines, bold angles and inorganic shapes, because organic shapes evoke nature, while they're about imposing their new artificial industrial order, coherence they choose to have over the infernal taurus by making it a statue instead of a somewhat living animal, and it's spot on as a decision.
The problems I see are that chaos dwarfs already had a visual language, a less unique one perhaps, but a visual language nonetheless, and they chose to delete that almost completely to restart from scratch, so I do understand why some fans of the old look aren't fully on board with the new one; the second problem relates to what formed the previous language and why it made that one both less unique, more familiar and "better" because more flexible and verisimilar: it used more than one shape.
The new visual language is very strong, coherent and literally iconic at a glance, but feels limited because it's built on this almost singular design cue, while the previous aesthetic had both hard lines and plenty of curves, both arrows and flames, both skulls and runes and thunderbolts. This variety makes the language more directionless, but it also makes it very flexible, chaos dwarfs had many different hat designs, and many more could be easily cooked up, similarly a weapon could be a very curved sword or a hard lined axe and both would have fit them neatly, and this variety feels familiar and natural because historical designs are never just one symbol or just one theme or just one artisan, but what's in style in one area is the result of decades and centuries of a process that inevitably branches everything. on top of the chaos dwarfs having certain shapes chosen specifically to remind of a certain geographical area.
