GameMastery Flip-Mat: Forest

I assume this is a temporary picture since it looks like the woodlands map. Does this map go along with the woodlands map? How is it different?

I assume this is a temporary picture since it looks like the woodlands map. Does this map go along with the woodlands map? How is it different?

It would be awesome if the two could be easily connected together!

I assume this is a temporary picture since it looks like the woodlands map. Does this map go along with the woodlands map? How is it different?

It is a placeholder image, as the actual map hasn't been designed yet. (Which is also why I can't actually tell you in what ways it will be different...)

Will the back side be mostly clear grassland?

Will the back side be mostly clear grassland?

I hope not, I have waaay too many blank battlemats

0gre wrote:

I assume this is a temporary picture since it looks like the woodlands map. Does this map go along with the woodlands map? How is it different?

It is a placeholder image, as the actual map hasn't been designed yet. (Which is also why I can't actually tell you in what ways it will be different...)

Would be nice as Yoda suggests if it tied into either the river crossing or the woodlands map (or Both?)

Thanks for the reply.

Would be nice as Yoda suggests if it tied into either the river crossing or the woodlands map (or Both?)

Ditto. A 3-map combo tie-in like that would be perfect for a lot of the encounters in the Kingmaker AP.

I didn't say "blank battlemat", I said "clear grassland", as in "green field where I can put my outdoorsy terrain". I already have a 4'X8' gray slate with a black 1" grid on it, but that looks more like a parking lot than a fantasy battlefield.

I didn't say "blank battlemat", I said "clear grassland", as in "green field where I can put my outdoorsy terrain". I already have a 4'X8' gray slate with a black 1" grid on it, but that looks more like a parking lot than a fantasy battlefield.

About half the flipmats have "clear terrain" on one side. I believe what 0gre meant was that something akin to the previous woodlands map with a different forest layout on each side would be preferred. If one needs clear grass, there are already flipmats that provide that.

Not enough. Here's another vote for clear grassland on the back.

Not enough. Here's another vote for clear grassland on the back.

Why do you need more than one? One grassland map looks the same as another. I understand the desire to have plain, uncluttered terrain on one side of a map, but why combine grassland with forest? They're completely different. That would be like putting tundra on the back of a jungle map or swamplands on the back of the desert map.

There was only one with truely "clear grassland" on the back, and it's waaaay OOP. Gray is good for "blank dungeon", tan is good for "blank desert/anything", green is good for "blank outdoors". I was hoping for just that. Putting mostly green tiles/map cards on a non-green mat kinda looks... not so good.

Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Not enough. Here's another vote for clear grassland on the back.

Why do you need more than one? One grassland map looks the same as another. I understand the desire to have plain, uncluttered terrain on one side of a map, but why combine grassland with forest? They're completely different. That would be like putting tundra on the back of a jungle map or swamplands on the back of the desert map.

I buy the flip maps because I want interesting terrain options which I can toss down in a hurry. Tundra on the back of a desert map gives me more options for this. I have plenty of blank maps and don't need any more.

As far as I'm concerned a flip mat that has prints on both sides is worth a lot more than one with a blank side is worth.

yoda8myhead wrote:

Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Not enough. Here's another vote for clear grassland on the back.

Why do you need more than one? One grassland map looks the same as another. I understand the desire to have plain, uncluttered terrain on one side of a map, but why combine grassland with forest? They're completely different. That would be like putting tundra on the back of a jungle map or swamplands on the back of the desert map.

I buy the flip maps because I want interesting terrain options which I can toss down in a hurry. Tundra on the back of a desert map gives me more options for this. I have plenty of blank maps and don't need any more.

As far as I'm concerned a flip mat that has prints on both sides is worth a lot more than one with a blank side is worth.

While I'd rather have more forest map than tundra, I agree that another "blank" map is useless to me. I need quick encounter areas. I already have dozens of dry-erase maps with nothing on them.

(And see the Treasure Chest for a great use of the Flip Maps...Awesome!)

While I'd rather have more forest map than tundra, I agree that another "blank" map is useless to me. I need quick encounter areas. I already have dozens of dry-erase maps with nothing on them.

(And see the Treasure Chest for a great use of the Flip Maps...Awesome!)

Well the tundra bit was just making a point, I just would much prefer a flip mat have map content on both sides. Related content on both sides is obviously better.

A clearing in the forest with a hill in the middle would be great :)

gigglestick wrote:

While I'd rather have more forest map than tundra, I agree that another "blank" map is useless to me. I need quick encounter areas. I already have dozens of dry-erase maps with nothing on them.

(And see the Treasure Chest for a great use of the Flip Maps...Awesome!)

Well the tundra bit was just making a point, I just would much prefer a flip mat have map content on both sides. Related content on both sides is obviously better.

A clearing in the forest with a hill in the middle would be great :)

YES!

+1

Personally, I'd like to see a ground level forest ... i.e. one with the trunks of the trees instead of the crowns.

After all, I don't stage many battles flying over a forest. They're always on the ground :)

Personally, I'd like to see a ground level forest ... i.e. one with the trunks of the trees instead of the crowns.

After all, I don't stage many battles flying over a forest. They're always on the ground :)

There are some forests where there are trees with little ground cover underneath but not a lot. Most forests unless you are on the road you are in "difficult terrain" and I think feel the forest map shows that fairly well. There are some forests where ground cover is light enough where just having bare tree trunks would make sense but they are less common. So while the tree top view is not very reflective of a forest floor it's pretty representative of what movement would be like. There is also the Ancient Forest Map Pack which has a more ground level representation.

As far as I'm concerned a flip mat that has prints on both sides is worth a lot more than one with a blank side is worth.

I have to agree. A LOT MORE. In fact some of them like the Pathfinder Lodge I bought 2 so I could have both levels/sides on the table at the same time.

Would be nice as Yoda suggests if it tied into either the river crossing or the woodlands map (or Both?)

I would love if it tied in with both of those. That would be awesome. Think of the possibilities. I would also love if the flip-maps were tied in with the Adventure Paths in some way.

Thanks...

Not enough. Here's another vote for clear grassland on the back.

I say if you need more grasslands buy a couple of the other ones that have grasslands on the back already. I bought two woodlands and river crossings to I could use both sides at once.

gigglestick wrote:

While I'd rather have more forest map than tundra, I agree that another "blank" map is useless to me. I need quick encounter areas. I already have dozens of dry-erase maps with nothing on them.

(And see the Treasure Chest for a great use of the Flip Maps...Awesome!)

Well the tundra bit was just making a point, I just would much prefer a flip mat have map content on both sides. Related content on both sides is obviously better.

A clearing in the forest with a hill in the middle would be great :)

+1 on that! A hill would be nice.

I'm also +1 on the both sides issue, i want another map that ties in with the theme, not a grass side!

The recent Bandit Outpost map has a blank grassy side.

So it doesn't make much sense for the Forest one to have one.

A forest clearing as the flip side--trees on the edge, room in the middle to set up stuff like fairy circles (maybe make it easy to incorporate in the forest map cards), that would be nice and would be "blank" enough without being a repeat.

Personally, I'd like to see a ground level forest ... i.e. one with the trunks of the trees instead of the crowns.

There are some forests where there are trees with little ground cover underneath but not a lot. Most forests unless you are on the road you are in "difficult terrain" and I think feel the forest map shows that fairly well.

Might as well use a blank battle-mat in that case, since you're just treating it as a huge area of difficult terrain.

Besides, most forests I've been in are not difficult terrain except for isolated groves - except at the edges along an open area where there's more light at ground level.

I'm more interested in the tactical aspects of hiding behind trees, slipping between trunks to evade large creatures, etc.

There is also the Ancient Forest Map Pack which has a more ground level representation.

Am I the only one who finds the map packs difficult to use? They're really really cool, but in practice I find it to be a pain to fiddle with a bunch of thin cardboard sheets.

For the most recent one, I'm doing an experiment - I taped them all together so that they're more like the flip mats - something I can just pull out and use.

0gre wrote:

There is also the Ancient Forest Map Pack which has a more ground level representation.

Am I the only one who finds the map packs difficult to use? They're really really cool, but in practice I find it to be a pain to fiddle with a bunch of thin cardboard sheets.

For the most recent one, I'm doing an experiment - I taped them all together so that they're more like the flip mats - something I can just pull out and use.

Taping the ones that are supposed to go together are an interesting idea. I don't do that, but I label the backs so I can see quickly how they go together. And I usually stick them to the flip mat I'm using with blutak. This worked nicely the other day with some ruins tiles I had and the Darklands flip-mat.

Besides, most forests I've been in are not difficult terrain except for isolated groves - except at the edges along an open area where there's more light at ground level.

In Alaska the forests are usually hard to get through almost everywhere. Certain types are easier to maneuver through but they still can be tuff. A lot of underbrush and other not so fun things to try to get through.

Sean

In Alaska the forests are usually hard to get through almost everywhere. Certain types are easier to maneuver through but they still can be tuff. A lot of underbrush and other not so fun things to try to get through.

Makes perfect sense ... but isn't the point of a flip-mat to have things on it to interact with?

If you've got an entire mat that's all difficult terrain, it might as well be a blank battlemat.

And I'll certainly agree that many vegetated areas are difficult terrain. I remember especially one mountain I hiked over trying to reach the Appalachian trail - it seemed like the whole thing was mountain laurel. Ugh.

My point was merely that many forests are not just giant blobs of difficult terrain, and a flip mat with tree boles rather than one giant blob of "here ye find difficulte terrain" would be more interesting and useful.

gbonehead wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see a ground level forest ... i.e. one with the trunks of the trees instead of the crowns.

0gre wrote:

There are some forests where there are trees with little ground cover underneath but not a lot. Most forests unless you are on the road you are in "difficult terrain" and I think feel the forest map shows that fairly well.

Might as well use a blank battle-mat in that case, since you're just treating it as a huge area of difficult terrain.

Besides, most forests I've been in are not difficult terrain except for isolated groves - except at the edges along an open area where there's more light at ground level.

I'm more interested in the tactical aspects of hiding behind trees, slipping between trunks to evade large creatures, etc.

0gre wrote:

There is also the Ancient Forest Map Pack which has a more ground level representation.

Am I the only one who finds the map packs difficult to use? They're really really cool, but in practice I find it to be a pain to fiddle with a bunch of thin cardboard sheets.

For the most recent one, I'm doing an experiment - I taped them all together so that they're more like the flip mats - something I can just pull out and use.

I like the map packs, especially when you just need one or two pieces.

I admit that the multi-card sets can be a bit more difficult, but they're still a great value. And the ability to overlay single cards onto another map is a lot of fun.

But I also mark the backs so that I can tell what is what.

And I like the idea of 2 sets of PF lodge so that I can run on both levels....

And I like the idea of 2 sets of PF lodge so that I can run on both levels....

Yeah, I am wondering about some of the flip mats, especially the PF lodge and the bandit outpost - since the two sides are meant to be continuous, it seems like the intent is to have to purchase two of them or something.

I'd rather have the two sides be unrelated so that I'm not stuck with the following:

a) Buy two sets of the same thing just so that I have access to both sides at the same time

b) Ditch all the minis, flip the mat and replace every time the boundary is crossed.

Perhaps for some of these, there should be multiple matching sets, or two-sheet super flip mat sets?

I really want to use the PF lodge, but I immediatly identified the logistical nightmare of having floor two on the flip side of floor one, and haven't been able to figure out how to resolve it.

There are two possible choices: (1) buy a second flipmat; (2) have Kinko's copy one side and laminate it.

Just my 2 cp.

0gre wrote:

There are some forests where there are trees with little ground cover underneath but not a lot. Most forests unless you are on the road you are in "difficult terrain" and I think feel the forest map shows that fairly well.

Might as well use a blank battle-mat in that case, since you're just treating it as a huge area of difficult terrain.

Besides, most forests I've been in are not difficult terrain except for isolated groves - except at the edges along an open area where there's more light at ground level.

I'd be curious which forests you've been in.

I've been in a LOT of forests. Generally it depends on the amount of rainfall the area gets but most forests are rough traveling unless you are on a trail. The forest map is perfect because the areas on trail are clearly normal terrain and the areas off trail are clearly difficult terrain.

I'm more interested in the tactical aspects of hiding behind trees, slipping between trunks to evade large creatures, etc.

I can see the appeal of this. I've seen some graphics where the trunk and major branches of trees are visible through the foliage which would work for this. It would also be great for encounters with druids and rangers.

0gre wrote:

There is also the Ancient Forest Map Pack which has a more ground level representation.

Am I the only one who finds the map packs difficult to use? They're really really cool, but in practice I find it to be a pain to fiddle with a bunch of thin cardboard sheets.

Usually I tape the related ones with packing tape. One of the advantages of the map packs is they can be rearranged in different ways depending on the particular circumstances. The ancient forest isn't my favorite map pack.

Erik Mona says this map is being designed to be compatible with the Woodlands map which is awesome. Now I must buy this one.

I'd be curious which forests you've been in.

In Washington and Oregon on the western (Eugene, Ashland, Oakridge, Portland, Seattle) half of the state the ground cover is very dense, on the eastern half (Near Bend/Klamath) it's pretty sparse aside from the trees. In California near the coast and in the Sierra ground cover is pretty dense and almost universally tough to travel through. In Southern California things are less dense but there is often more low scrub than actual trees. In Nevada/Utah/Arizona things are generally sparse but there are few trees.

...

I've been in a LOT of forests ...

You've been in a lot of forests on the west coast of North America :)

I was never debating the point that some forests have lots of undergrowth. However, that has little to do with my two points:

* A forest that is all undergrowth might as well be a blank battlemap.

* Forests do exist that do not have choking undergrowth everywhere. Every forest near where I grew up (on the east coast) was this way. There were occasional groves of undergrowth, but in general, ground level was clear underneath the canopy.

Just added the Woodlands to my next order..somehow I think it , Swamp, Forest and River Crossing might all get a lot of use in Kingmaker

0gre wrote:

I'd be curious which forests you've been in.

In Washington and Oregon on the western (Eugene, Ashland, Oakridge, Portland, Seattle) half of the state the ground cover is very dense, on the eastern half (Near Bend/Klamath) it's pretty sparse aside from the trees. In California near the coast and in the Sierra ground cover is pretty dense and almost universally tough to travel through. In Southern California things are less dense but there is often more low scrub than actual trees. In Nevada/Utah/Arizona things are generally sparse but there are few trees.

...

I've been in a LOT of forests ...

You've been in a lot of forests on the west coast of North America :)

I was never debating the point that some forests have lots of undergrowth. However, that has little to do with my two points:

* A forest that is all undergrowth might as well be a blank battlemap.

* Forests do exist that do not have choking undergrowth everywhere. Every forest near where I grew up (on the east coast) was this way. There were occasional groves of undergrowth, but in general, ground level was clear underneath the canopy.

We were just replying to your post earlier of...

Besides, most forests I've been in are not difficult terrain except for isolated groves - except at the edges along an open area where there's more light at ground level.

Sean

Yep :)

We were just replying to your post earlier of...

Quote:

Besides, most forests I've been in are not difficult terrain except for isolated groves - except at the edges along an open area where there's more light at ground level.

Oh, I'm with ya.

I just think that what might be 100% realistic might also make for a dull map - I'm more interested in usefulness for play.

I was never debating the point that some forests have lots of undergrowth.

Umm, I guess I misread your above comment which seemed to imply exactly that.

* A forest that is all undergrowth might as well be a blank battlemap.

It looks like the Woodlands battlemat where there are forested bits which are difficult terrain and trails which are not which more or less reflects how travel in forests works.

* Forests do exist that do not have choking undergrowth everywhere. Every forest near where I grew up (on the east coast) was this way. There were occasional groves of undergrowth, but in general, ground level was clear underneath the canopy.

I said above, seeing the tree bases and major branches through the foliage would be cool.

Yep :)

thenorthman wrote:

We were just replying to your post earlier of...

Quote:

Besides, most forests I've been in are not difficult terrain except for isolated groves - except at the edges along an open area where there's more light at ground level.

Oh, I'm with ya.

I just think that what might be 100% realistic might also make for a dull map - I'm more interested in usefulness for play.

I'd go with that.

Sean

This is also a mystery to me, but I'm almost positive that this will NOT be a re-hash of the Woodlands.

This is also a mystery to me, but I'm almost positive that this will NOT be a re-hash of the Woodlands.

I know this isn't a duplicate of Woodlands but since they are selling out of it soon this is it's successor. Woodlands is one of my favorite map products ever so you have a high bar to cross ;)

I think I can answer this without giving away too much. Both sides will have content on them and they BOTH sides will match up with the similarly-styled flipmats for continuity.

I think I can answer this without giving away too much. Both sides will have content on them and they BOTH sides will match up with the similarly-styled flipmats for continuity.

Yes!!!!!

Thanks for the reply, Corey.

Product image updated to show finished product.

Yumm, this looks awesome. I like the clearing, probably get a lot of use from that.

Any one know if this can be connected up to the river one as well?

I see that if a person really wanted to they could get two of these and have a larger map area with out flipping them and they would be connected.

I suppose I could look as well.....

Sean

When I was at Paizocon Corey said the forest map should fit both the river crossing and the woodlands maps. My understanding was you'd be able to make one giant map from the three but I might have misunderstood him. This was before the product was ready so...

Outstanding!

When I was at Paizocon Corey said the forest map should fit both the river crossing and the woodlands maps. My understanding was you'd be able to make one giant map from the three but I might have misunderstood him. This was before the product was ready so...

They were indeed designed that way. Unfortunately, the new one came back a bit darker than the others, so it's not as visually flawless as we'd have liked, but stuff does line up right.

Any chance we can get the maps in PDF format too?

My group and I are moving to online gaming via maptools/ventrilo due to all sorts of RL issues. Id love to buy these for tactical combats.

We believe that if we offered our Map Packs in PDF form, a significant number of gamers would choose the PDF edition exclusively over the print edition, which would mean smaller print runs for the print edition, which—since print costs are based largely on volume—would in turn mean higher costs for the print edition, which would lead to even smaller sales for it, which would mean we wouldn't have a profitable line anymore.