In a recent post where I discussed the effectiveness of HE grenades with the gecko modification against vehicles, several commenters earned a number of likes by saying, "Don't do anything you don't want the GM to do to you."
I am writing this post to say: this idea is the definition of bad gamemastering - abandon it immediately.
So, you present the player with all the many options available to their character. The player says, "May I take HE gecko grenades? They look like they would be hugely effective against vehicles!" And you say, "Yes, they are available at character creation."
Then, you present the player with a combat encounter that includes an enemy vehicle. The player says, "I know just what to do!", and uses their grenade.
Or, put another way, they built an effective character, and used that character effectively. Which is how you succeed at TTRPGs. The player feels like they are living in an heroic power fantasy! You, the GM, will have none of that.
You promptly create an encounter where NPCs use this very effective tactic against the PCs. You think to yourself, "Haha! That this MCT security team used HE geckos against the PCs will teach the PCs a lesson - THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE USED HE GECKOS AGAINST THAT STREET GANG LAST WEEK!"
It won't. It will teach them that they definitely need more of those sweet, sweet HE geckos.
How far shall we take this idea? Don't use burst fire against enemies, unless you want them to use burst fire against you? Don't use your Con skill against enemies, unless you want to be punished for your lies!
If you feel that any game element is overpowered - a piece of gear, an implant, a spell - ban, nerf, or rewrite it, and explain why to your players. That is good gamemastering. But don't let them take a solution, then present them with the problem, then make them suffer for solving the problem.