Just for fun I was trying to see how many Hit Points a single hero could get, and this is the maximum I could arrive to (without repeating the same attachments, without the Treasures from the Hobbit Saga or boons from The Lord of the Rings Saga, without any objective cards).

Hero: LeGimli

Starting HP = 5

1 Citadel Plate [restricted] = +4
1 Ancestral Armor [restricted] = +2
1 Vigilant Guard = +2
1 Hardy Leadership = +1
1 Hauberk of Mail = +1
1 Ent Draught = +2
1 Boots from Erebor = +1
1 Ring of Barahir (plus Black Arrow [giving Gimli ranged somehow], The Red Arrow [giving Gimli the Gondor trait somehow], Thror's Key, Sword That Was Broken, Thror's Map, Magic Ring, Necklace of Girion, Palantir, Ring of Thror, The Arkenstone, Mithril Shirt [from Fate of the Wilderland]) = +12

Total = 30 Hit Points

Anyone has an even higher total to propose? Did I miss something? Feel free to contribute.

Runner Up

TaPrince Imrahil

Starting HP = 4

3 Anfalas Herdman with Prince of Dol Amroth = +3
1 Citadel Plate [restricted] = +4
1 Ancestral Armor [restricted] = +2
1 Vigilant Guard = +2
1 Ent Draught = +2
1 Hauberk of Mail [giving Imrahil sentinel somehow] = +1
1 Ring of Barahir (plus Black Arrow [giving Imrahil ranged somehow], The Red Arrow, Thror's Key, Sword That Was Broken, Thror's Map, Magic Ring, Necklace of Girion, Palantir, The Arkenstone, Mithril Shirt [from Fate of the Wilderland]) = +11

Total = 29 Hit Points

Start with Hirluin or Imrahil -- that starts them down one HP and they don't have access to Hardy Leadership, Boots from Erebor, Ring of Thror, so three Anfalas Herdsman still leaves them one short. So play with three other players, all of which get their 3x Anfalas Herdsmen in the discard, then use 9 plays of Stand and Fight to get them in play for you.

1 minute ago, dalestephenson said:

Start with Hirluin or Imrahil -- that starts them down one HP and they don't have access to Hardy Leadership, Boots from Erebor, Ring of Thror, so three Anfalas Herdsman still leaves them one short. So play with three other players, all of which get their 3x Anfalas Herdsmen in the discard, then use 9 plays of Stand and Fight to get them in play for you.

Yeah sorry perhaps I should have clarified also that I was talking of a single player situation (otherwise the outlands would quickly get out of hand), even though a very far fetched one.

Why only one copy of citadel plate?

23 minutes ago, Seosaidh said:

Why only one copy of citadel plate?

It was kinda too easy and I also always found the idea of having two copies of certain attachments (Mounts, certain armors and weapons) on the same character a tad too much of a break from "plausibility"

Do all this on Beorn after he gets blanked in certain scenarios, and you’ve got +5 HP.

17 minutes ago, GrandSpleen said:

Do all this on Beorn after he gets blanked in certain scenarios, and you’ve got +5 HP.

I wanted to exclude scenario-specific stuff, but that's also a valid point. Actually you would be missing Hardy Leadership, Boots from Erebor and Thror's Ring so it's more like +2 HP I think.

What happens with the attachments that read: "Attached ally gains X" when the attached ally becomes a hero with Sword-thain?

What happens with the attachments that read: "Attached hero gains X" when the attached hero becomes an ally (thinking in Spirit Prince Imrahil here)?

If the attached ally is no longer an ally, the attachment no longer does anything. If the attached hero is no longer a hero, the attachment no longer does anything.

On 3/15/2019 at 8:52 PM, dalestephenson said:

If the attached ally is no longer an ally, the attachment no longer does anything. If the attached hero is no longer a hero, the attachment no longer does anything.

This is basically correct re: the asked question, but to get some technical points out of the way: it's the "attached X yadayada…" part that no longer does anything when the character is no longer an X. But there are cases where the attachment itself can still function, e.g.,

On 3/16/2019 at 6:18 AM, Alonewolf87 said:

It was kinda too easy and I also always found the idea of having two copies of certain attachments (Mounts, certain armors and weapons) on the same character a tad too much of a break from "plausibility"

This seems like a strange explanation given that you still have the one hero wearing multiple sets of armour. Ancestral Armour, Citadel Plate and Hauberk of Mail together is just as silly as two Citadel Plates.

Multiple mounts actually makes a lot more sense.

4 hours ago, Schrodinger's Hat said:

This seems like a strange explanation given that you still have the one hero wearing multiple sets of armour. Ancestral Armour, Citadel Plate and Hauberk of Mail together is just as silly as two Citadel Plates.

Well an Hauberk of Mail donned underneath a set of armor actually makes a lot of sense from a realistic and historic point of view. The Ancestral Armor + Citadel Plate I admit it's still quite silly (one could also imagine the Citadel Plate as an Ancestral heirloom so basically it's considered one item which provides both the boosts +2 Defense and +6 hit points at the cost of both restricted slots, but I know that starting to go down this road can lead to pretty bizzare justifications). Basically they were simply some random restrictions I wanted to impose for this idea to avoid going down roads I didn't appreciate.

11 hours ago, Alonewolf87 said:

Edit: deleted because it sounded very argumentative and that was not intended for a friendly forum like this. Apologies.

2 hours ago, Schrodinger's Hat said:

Edit: deleted because it sounded very argumentative and that was not intended for a friendly forum like this. Apologies.

No worries. If it was about the use of armor in history I realize that a full hauberk would never have been donned with a plate armour, but from what I know there was a period when chain mail were often used to protect the gap of plate armour, especially around the joints, the armpits and the crotch, especially againts dagger, lances and other stabbing implements. It was not perfect nor confortable, but still effective. Of course I am no history expert, that's just stuff I read around so I might be sorely mistaken, but it seemed plausible