The way I read the rules re: capsule bullet is that you get 100 rounds for each "purchase" plus the cost of the payload. Not that you buy the payload 100 times, but rather that purchasing the payload is spread throughout the 100 bullets. Let's not forget, for the moment, that individual bullets today are not terribly large, and that capsule rounds, despite halving their damage and lowering their AP, still pack a considerable punch so that the payload can be delivered to the target, ideally inside of them. This, to me, says that the payload, be it biological, chemical, or nanotechnological, should ideally break skin in order to work. The benefit, then of a nanoswarm over the other two is that it would not need to break skin in order to work. I would, however, not give it infinite rounds of working. At best, it would apply the effect of the payload for a round when the target is hit by it, perhaps for additional rounds if you get a good burst off. But for serious damage, why would you bother with nanoswarms? Why not use frogbite? 2d10+10 damage for 3 rounds and Som x 2 or be paralyzed for an hour? Nasty stuff, though you would at least need skin contact for that. As for teleoperating nanoswarms, sure, you *can* do that, but radio ranges limit the effectiveness of the process, because while you might be able to give commands, you can't control them directly. Why not? You can't see through (i.e. teleoperate) the nanoswarm's cameras. While your mesh may have an impressive range, nanoswarms are 20/100m for city/open terrain. So you could send them commands, but you couldn't get back updates, see through their eyes, or even know if they were still functional or not. Worse yet, with EMP, that becomes 2/10m, plus the handling difficulty. Now, could you get a seeker to spread a nanoswarm, RAW, over a ten meter radius, but that splash weapon isn't doing any actual damage apart from what the swarm might do, and with smaller seekers, like mini-grenades and micro-missiles, the likelyhood of each seeker containing a full swarm diminishes, since the swarm "cloud" is reduced to 5 meters. Possible, but clearly not a full sized cloud in that case. Though since you buy seekers in groups of 10, perhaps it should only be 1/10th of a swarm, I'm not sure. I'd have to think about it. Either way, it's either 1 swarm split into somewhat less effective parts, or you have to pay for each swarm individually, which gets cost prohibitive. Now, while you might not like people coming up with new rules TekHed, that's just simply too bad. Any GM worth his salt will take a look at something like combining 1,000 nanoswarms into one 10mx10mx10m area as something that is ridiculous, unrealistic, and thus extraordinarily unlikely, and thus rule against such a thing from occurring. You might not like that, but that's sort of the purpose of a GM, to arbitrate the rules of the world. Moreover, while yes Nanites are meant to be more or less invisible to the naked eye, they do have mass and when you get enough together in a condensed space, you will have a fog-like haze that can be seen with the good old mark one eyeball. The more there are, the more obvious it is that they are there. Rather like humidity. Sure, it's evaporated water, and it's almost always in the air around us, but it's usually invisible, but there comes a point you're made patently aware of its existance, like when fog comes rolling in. Or a cloud. I mean, if you want to talk realistically. Plus, stacking up nanoswarms all in one place makes them even easier to destroy. EMP has a radius of 50m, and plasma grenades do full damage, and anything with a blast radius does at least 1d10 damage to the swarm. If they're all stacked up, any attack on one swarm will damage them all. An EMP/Plasma double tap will wreck their day. Meanwhile, let's say you've only got one swarm, but you condense it down into a smaller cloud. I don't see anywhere in the rules where it says it does more damage the more concentrated the nanites are, so why would multiple swarms automatically increase damage, or even multiple shots from an automatic weapon? See, the issue here is that you would like player ingenuity to be rewarded. You're right in that it should be, but player ingenuity is not simply finding something phenomenally effective, though it can be. What is a problem, quite often is when the players find a loophole in the rules, or something they argue is a loophole in the rules, and take the stance most useful to them at the time. Of course, that's how GM/Player Arms Races get started, and as a word to the wise, players rarely win those sorts of battles. Trust me. When you come up with a new application for existing gear, it helps to have some sort of precedent set by other rules to back up that it is, in fact, possible by the intention of the rules or the setting's level of technology. When you go into completely uncharted territory, it is less likely that what you are considering is plausible for the setting. Moreover, if you've come up with something that could dissolve a habitat's outer hull over a wide area in roughly three seconds with something that's easily available, you really have to ask why this hasn't been done before by anyone else in the fiction.