I've had a couple of instances of this lately - one for a hero, the second for an enemy - is there any rule to say a character can only have one mount attached?

Case 1 - Glorfindel was riding Windfola (restricted), and I wanted to attach Asfaloth to him (unrestricted).

Case 2 - Uruk Chieftain (in Race across Harad) - had a Mordor Warg attached (limit 1 per enemy) and I drew a Racing Warg (also limit 1 per enemy, but I am assuming the limit is for the card of the same name, as neither card text specifies otherwise).

In both cases, I had the target double-mounted, as I couldn't see a rule not to do so.

There's no specific restriction on number of mounts.

Yeah, by the rules both of those get two mounts, but it is a bit of a flavor fail.

I'm not sure it's technically a flavour fail. Historically, mounted warriors often kept multiple horses, either for different purposes (long range riding rather than combat) or as backups for if their primary mount was injured or killed. Of course, you can only ride one at a time, but I don't mind multiple mounts representing a mounted warrior's train.

Thanks guys! That was the view I ended up on - Glorfindel swapping horses between questing and exploring, etc. I did fall between the "flavour fail" view and the horse-hopping stance, but Uruk Chieftain with two mounts is an absolute pig...

One foot on each mount, we know Legolas could do it

If there was a Mount limit, we might not have gotten hero Elfhelm.

38 minutes ago, Wandalf the Gizzard said:

If there was a Mount limit, we might not have gotten hero Elfhelm.

I don't know why that would matter, Elfhelm's bonus doesn't change if you have multiple mounts on the same character. No stacking here.

I know, but it’s fun to stack a bunch of mounts on heroes in an Elfhelm deck, extra boosts or no.