New 40K Icon

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jeff white**

Hot or not?

**Sim-Life**

I want to know if this is the official one or of the one in the CG ad with the corrected R is the official one.

**Elbows**

Really lazy/boring.

**NephMakes**

Sim-Life wrote:
I want to know if this is the official one or of the one in the CG ad with the corrected R is the official one.

For what it's worth, this is the one on the new official website.

In a way, it's truth in advertising: their logo has clear design flaws, just like their game rules.

**Gregor Samsa**

I think the old Warhammer Fantasy red and yellow is an iconic and timeless look that captures the quirkiness of tabletop/mini games and the hobby world surrounding it.

As popular as 40k is/was, from an aesthetic perspective, imo, it never feels to me as well-fitting as the look of WFB.

**Lance845**

Option 5 who gives a feth?

**Grimgold**

Maybe it's a nostalgia thing but I like it because it kind of reminds me of GI Joe and Saturday morning cartoons.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Eh, apathetic to it.

The ling through the characters is reminiscent of a stencil, but kind of awkward looking. The red line is also a little funny because it's otherwise pretty monochromatic.

**Stormonu**

Looks too sleek and modern. Liked the previous chiselled look.

**vipoid**

It looks like it belongs on one of the original Airfix kits.

**jeff white**

To me it looks tacticool as if the team that designed the rievers made it. Too GIJoe TopGun for me. I think meh. Old one was better. Interesting results though!

**Argive**

Personaly dont like it.
The old one was soo iconic.

It feels like the old 40k space crusade style logo..

**Voss**

Lance845 wrote:
Option 5 who gives a feth?

Same.

Any label that clearly conveys a product is for 40K line of warhammer is equal in my eyes. As long as it isn't in silly or unreadable font or script, it doesn't matter.

**fraser1191**

Elbows wrote:
Really lazy/boring.

It's funny because I could not remember the old design, I also forgot this design too. Regardless I'm not hyped to so new players the title of the game. Models and art is what attracts people, this is just slapped onto stuff for new people that aren't familiar with the model ranges and art

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

jeff white wrote:To me it looks tacticool as if the team that designed the rievers made it. Too GIJoe TopGun for me. I think meh. Old one was better. Interesting results though!

It's the stencil font that gives it that look, I bet.

Stormonu wrote:Looks too sleek and modern. Liked the previous chiselled look.

It's the lack of serifs on the font.

The serifed font looks better, but that's just because serifed fonts looks better in general for any font.

I do like the "stenciled letters" look in general, but the way it's done in the new logo with the horizontal line is really weird looking since it's not actually a stencil.

That said, you can definitely see the continuity between the new logo and the really old yellow/red/black logo, but we've definitely moved past the point of brightly colored things, which is good.

**ccs**

Kinda "Meh".
I liked the previous one better.

On the + side you won't have a problem spotting your new books vs your old ones - even if they re-use cover art again.

**Voss**

ccs wrote:
even if they re-use cover art again.

Ugh. That was one of their worst sins.

I actually skipped buying several codexes because I legitimately couldn't tell which edition they were for, and they were in shrink wrap in an indie store. Had no idea if they were left over stock, or if they'd gotten the new books in, and the only staff in the place was the comic book guy who had no idea.

**H.B.M.C.**

It's fine, as long as it's not the one with the "R" going outside the border.

**ClockworkZion**

Sim-Life wrote:
I want to know if this is the official one or of the one in the CG ad with the corrected R is the official one.

That R is tradition:

**H.B.M.C.**

That last one didn't have an outline to stay inside of.

**ClockworkZion**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
That last one didn't have an outline to stay inside of.

It still overlaps the the background instead of staying inside of a border, implied or otherwise.

**Vaktathi**

I don't mind the new logo, it looks fine to me, a bit less grimdark than the current one, but doesn't seem at all out of place. I also like the old school goldwings

**Voss**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
I want to know if this is the official one or of the one in the CG ad with the corrected R is the official one.

That R is tradition:

The R is what you notice, but its the central A that's off-center. For some reason it isn't lined up with the split between the eagle heads. That slighty-too-far-to-the-right pushes the tip of the R out, and gives the W too much extra space.

**Hellebore**

Vaktathi wrote:
I don't mind the new logo, it looks fine to me, a bit less grimdark than the current one, but doesn't seem at all out of place. I also like the old school goldwings

It kind of looks like a combination of the 2nd ed and 3rd+ ed versions. The sleeker metal styling of the 2nd ed one and the colour palette of the 3rd+.

i'ts not the 40k logo per se, but the 3.5 ed codex design which briefly appeared which looked IMO even more tacticool and sleek:

**Vaktathi**

Yeah that's a good way of putting it, nice observation with the 3.5E books.

**Hellebore**

the things that I specifically don't like about it are how flat it is (it just seems flimsy rather than the smash you over the head with solid rock the previous one was) and the fact that the eagle's tail in inverted - it should be wider at the bottom not narrower.

**JNAProductions**

Lance845 wrote:
Option 5 who gives a feth?

Yeah, agreed. I really do not care about the logo.

**Wayniac**

I like it other than the R being off, that bugs me a lot.

**Crimson**

I like the design, I don't like the colour; it is too blue. But I guess it is better than any of the previous ones.

Yeah, It is the blue that bugs me.

**AngryAngel80**

It sucks, that is all.

If you want more, it's bland, generic and screams boring. The last one had some spirit to it, this has generic sci fi trying too hard to get cool. Ya know like your Dad or Grand Dad trying to show you he's hip and down with the kids.