@Vaaish- Henna's summed up what I was trying to get at. I.e. its a difference that's below the scale of worrying about in epic.

_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem

Sometimes it is as you can technically put as many missile launcher troops on a stand as you want but the number of twin-linked Lascannons on a Land Raider more clearly isn't aesthetics :-)

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

The number of shots however are. Since they can kill both types does it matter if there two weapons firing one shot or one weapon firing two. End result is still two shots fired at enemy.

_________________
-Vaaish

It's a fair question.

The rules, already quoted, refer to "weapons" choosing AP or AT, but given the propensity of the rules to assume a generic, no-special-situations-ever-apply situation in their descriptions, I think it's a bit of a challenge to parse that out as a strict interpretation.  In addition, the examples only refer to "attacks" which leaves it somewhat vague.

If you want a strict RAW answer, I'd have to go with the "by weapon" call.  Multiple weapons can split as desired.  One weapon with multiple shots cannot.

In any other situation, and the way my group plays, I'd let it be split as desired.  I can't possibly imagine it makes a whit of difference in 99+% of games.

_________________
Neal

And here I thought this thread was going to be about why some weapons get multiple shots at all instead of the twin-linked treatment.

Leman Russes I'm looking at you.

_________________
Fear is for the enemy, fear and bullets.
-James O'Barr, the Crow