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.

I recently discovered that some pictures of my scratch builds had been tagged "poorhammer". For what it's worth, the images in question had voting disabled and were marked as WIP. I also found some images belonging to other users that had been tagged with "poorhammer" and "cheaphammer". That's pretty insulting. It's one thing if you don't happen to like something that someone else creates, but to go out of your way to poor shame someone and mock something they have created because it's not an official model, that's pretty low. The Dakka Dakka community has been extremely supportive of scratch builders. It saddens me to see this kind of behavior here.

I have removed the offending tags from my images.

Yeah, insulting people's models is a serious dick move. If you don't like the model, keep your mouth shut, or maybe offer constructive criticism. I feel like Thumper the rabbit said it best in the movie Bambi: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!"

Thats a bit bizarre that people have went to the trouble of negative tagging your stuff, even more so if it was your ork stuff. Scratchbuilding and conversions are a staple in ork players armies.

I didnt realise anyone even used the term poorhammer anymore. The only context Ive ever heard poorhammer used before this was for paper regiments in fantasy.

That's a shame, although it's possible it was not meant as an insult but to show how to do warhammer on a budget.

Perhaps Budgethammer or Thrifthammer would be better?

My tree army was definitely poorhammer and I take pride in that!

 Cleatus wrote:
I recently discovered that some pictures of my scratch builds had been tagged "poorhammer". For what it's worth, the images in question had voting disabled and were marked as WIP. I also found some images belonging to other users that had been tagged with "poorhammer" and "cheaphammer". That's pretty insulting. It's one thing if you don't happen to like something that someone else creates, but to go out of your way to poor shame someone and mock something they have created because it's not an official model, that's pretty low. The Dakka Dakka community has been extremely supportive of scratch builders. It saddens me to see this kind of behavior here.

I have removed the offending tags from my images.

I am sorry but that is the essence of dakka dakka community. You been here nearly as long as I have and you think dakka dakka is all happy faces and rainbows? I have encountered so many trolls and jerks on this forum that I have adopted their attitude.

I scratch build my stuff and I am proud to call it Ghetto hammer. So much of my stuff is scratch built or from other more affordable miniature companies that each and every community I go into I am met with so much animosity by the players and store owners because it is not official.

Just the other day, a player hated me and my models so much he offered to compensate only $100 to destroy my entire army with a blow torch.

welcome to dakka dakka and dont feed the trolls. But do feed me...

Seeing as it got you riled and posting about it, I'd say you gave them the laugh. Would have been better to just ignore it and remove the tags

Never heard of "poorhammer", "cheaphammer" or "ghettohammer" before. Bizarre.

Dropbear Victim wrote:
Thats a bit bizarre that people have went to the trouble of negative tagging your stuff, even more so if it was your ork stuff. Scratchbuilding and conversions are a staple in ork players armies.

I didnt realise anyone even used the term poorhammer anymore. The only context Ive ever heard poorhammer used before this was for paper regiments in fantasy.

I've seen it when people get into the hobby and have an army comprised of cheaper 'budget wise' choices. So like the contents of a starter box + a squad or vehicle, loaded with upgrades to stretch to 'x amount of points'.

Those kind of people get shamed hard at some places I've played. Happened a bit too me too when I was starting out, guy told me I wasn't going to win with my Eldar unless I run War Walkers and Wraithlords. (This was back a decade and half but still.) When I said I was saving up for some Scorpions he flat out said not to play unless willing to pay. So yeah it happens.

Welcome to geekdom, where insecure nerds make themselves feel big by being dicks.

Hmm, is it possible to report bad tags?

 Bookwrack wrote:
Welcome to geekdom life, where insecure nerds gits make themselves feel big by being dicks.

I think you'll find this kind of thing happens everywhere, not just on dakka

Better than poo shaming, or poohammer.

 Bookwrack wrote:
Welcome to geekdom, where insecure nerds make themselves feel big by being dicks.

Hmm, is it possible to report bad tags?

best way is probably to PM me.

Starting a thread in nuts and bolts works too.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I'll ask the question now, are the tags 'poorhammer' et al prejorative and insulting?

If so can they be replaced with something like bugethammer or thrifthammer?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


Actually I'll ask the question now, are the tags 'poorhammer' et al prejorative and insulting?

If so can they be replaced with something like bugethammer or thrifthammer?

It'd be a nice sentiment at best, we still have people who insist on ragging on people for taking cheaper options and it seems a bred-in attitude which the same posters take pride in.

again like any hobby/interest this one has people who are more interested in mickey-waving.

It's a ludicrous attitude! Why would you rag on someone for having the good sense to make the hobby more affordable for themselves?

Giving people guff for using starter boxes? Crazy!

My understanding, without being shown the pictures in question, is that its being used in a derogatory manner. Two people could spend the same amount of cash on raw materials and come out with different results. A guy who buys a plant pot, stuck some googly eyes on it and calls it a gargant vs some plasticard wonder. Both may cost the same, but I'm not sure people would say the later looked like it was done a budget.

I really like you work Cleatus. I think it is closer to the heart of what 40k was meant to be about than many other hobbiests.

IMO your scratch builds and conversions are better than most beautifully painted stock model as your models have a lot of thought go into them and are individual and have soul.

I know you have a lot of fun doing what you do, so just try not to let the others get you down.

I have a few of my own scratchbuilds, and I know some people aren't cool with scratch builds so I either don't use them or don't play at all against those people.

Such is the hobby/life/life in the hobby.

Scratchbuild or scratchbuilt would be the appropriate tag.

And frankly we ork players have been proudly scratchbuilding stuff since there's been orks. 'L33t' 40k players can suck a shroom.

The tags applied to the OP's images read fairly insulting to me and should be dealt with with a warning imo.

And for those of you out there scoffing and sipping your monster energy drink from a champagne flute...
remember where this came from.

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I realize that by posting anything on the internet, it's open for the world to see. It's my choice to post images here. I understand that some people just want to watch the world burn, however I think it is important to call out bad behavior. As I mentioned in my previous post, my images were not the only ones which were tagged with these labels. I could link the images in question, but honestly I think it's a moot point. It's true we cannot know the intent behind the person's actions, but yes I do believe the intent was to offend.

Kid_Kyoto, I do think that "poorhammer" is pejorative and insulting. An easy generic substitution would be 'scratch build'. That conveys the message that the user has created this model, without connotation on the quality of the work, materials used, or income status.

That's too bad. All I can say is 'em!

All of them, bell ends

Douche-ness much. I wonder if that individual watches Fox News. They seem to be into that sorta thing.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Scratchbuild or scratchbuilt would be the appropriate tag.

And frankly we ork players have been proudly scratchbuilding stuff since there's been orks. 'L33t' 40k players can suck a shroom.

The tags applied to the OP's images read fairly insulting to me and should be dealt with with a warning imo.

And for those of you out there scoffing and sipping your monster energy drink from a champagne flute...
remember where this came from.

I remember that. I remember recognising the guns and rocket launchers from Zoids, which immediately lead to me and a mate creating 40k robot profiles for our Zoid models and playing with them. Going so far as to remove bits and pieces when they took damage.
Top stuff, that was the whole point of the original 40k.

I think it might be a case of a term having different connotations for different people and that tagging stuff as "poorhammer" doesn't need to be malign in any way.

In some circles "poorhammer" is not so much about not being able to afford stuff as about taking pride in making armies cheap and fast, preferably using scratch building and re-purposing cheap toys and various non-gaming stuff while still having them looking fairly good.

See for example this episode of Countercharge where a self-described "Poorhammer" hobbyist gives some tips and tricks for making armies cheap and easy.
http://www.ohiohammer.com/counter-chargeccx/2015/11/26/ccx-34-hobby-time-with-joe-mclaren

In this terrific episode we sit down with Poorhammer Hobby Master Joe McLaren. We discuss his tricks for building awesome Kings of War armies that don't break the bank. We dissect his beautiful "Budget Dwarf" army unit by unit and discuss the Kings of War rule set along the way. If you would like to follow Joe's awesome progress he can be found on Twitter @Bundo_Kess

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Actually I'll ask the question now, are the tags 'poorhammer' et al prejorative and insulting?

If so can they be replaced with something like bugethammer or thrifthammer?

If the tags are applied by someone other than the author, they can easily be interpreted as "you're doing this because you're poor", yes. I certainly don't see it as a tag that would help people search for pictures, which is what tags are for, yes? Tags like Scratchbuild or DIY are perfectly sufficient to find this type of model.

I'd say scratch build would be the appropriate tag

poor/budget/thrift/cheap hammer all have too many potential negative connotations (intended or not)

Yes, i believe 'poorhammer' is a pejorative term unless it is used by someone to describe themselves.

'WIP' is perfectly good enough, 'scratchbuild' if you're lacking confidence in your skills/judgement - i think deleting the tag and ignoring it would be what i would have done, but raising the issue of how it made you feel is important since perspective can easily turn a compliment into an insult.

I checked your WIP images and i didn't see anything which could be called 'poorhammer', just interesting conversions and some very interesting finished models - the ork monowheel is a bit of a winner i recon.

Exactly, even if well intentioned, the term carries a lot of negative connotations. If I was describing myself that way in my own blog or posts, that would be one thing. For someone else to tag my images in that way, that's another. It does not seem to be a commonly used term; as I mentioned, there were/are other users images that were tagged with "poorhammer" and/or "cheaphammer", but it was fewer than 2 dozen when I looked. "Scratch build" and "WIP" are much, much more common and do not carry the same negative connotations.

I appreciate the discussion everyone. In the grand scheme of things, it's a small annoyance. It won't drive me away from the site, or stop me from posting. DakkaDakka is a great community and has been very supportive of my rather modest efforts.

Is there any way of finding out who added the tags?

I searched the gallery for the tag 'poorhammer'. There are only three images out of 729K that bear it, so clearly it is not a wide spread term.

I then googled poorhammer and found an article in Tauonline posted in 2007, referring to poorhammer as the creation of hobby stuff on a budget, plus a YouTube video, and a couple of other references to people's blogs and so on. This shows it has been around for a long time,

On balance, I don't think the tag was applied as an insult. I think it's a term some players decided to coin for playing Warhammer with cheap, scratch built stuff. However it is so uncommon a term that I am not surprised it would be understood. I had never encountered it before this thread, and I have been on DakkaDakka for over 10 years.

I scratch built a lot of Tau terrain out of cheap stuff and it never occurred to me that I was indulging in wargaming on a restricted budget. It just seemed a fun way to do stuff.

Scratch build is a better tag because everything in the gallery isn't necessarily for Warhammer.