Flamethrower and Torcher are identical

[Tyrant]

No reason to use the support weapon, the primary works identically and the S slot is much more valuable. Can this change please?

[Patarack]

Doesn't the flamethrower have a farther reach? honestly don't know since I use the flamer and machine gun as support.

[Speed Malus]

They aren't.

[Tyrant]

Originally posted by Patarack:

Doesn't the flamethrower have a farther reach?

No.

Originally posted by Speed Malus:

They aren't.

Tell me more.

[Speed Malus]

Originally posted by Tyrant:

Originally posted by Patarack:

Doesn't the flamethrower have a farther reach?

No.

Originally posted by Speed Malus:

They aren't.

Tell me more.

Bigger "Mag"
Longer Range
Feels like more damage.

[ItzPress]

Flamethrower does more damage.

Like that's literally all that can be said; statistically it literally just does more damage (4 as compared to 3, so expect at least around a 33%ish boost), and gets some support from ship module upgrades. And that's what you want if you're riskily razing something down, opting for a stratagem weapon over a primary.

[Tyrant]

Originally posted by Speed Malus:

Bigger "Mag"
Longer Range
Feels like more damage.

Torcher has slightly more ammo over more reloads, making it a more efficient weapon. They have the same range. The TTK is identical for heavies and chaff alike, hence the primary is objectively better than the support weapon.
This also doesn't mention that the support weapon has poor handling without peak physique, where the Torcher handles well without it.

[jakaruu11]

i use the flame thrower because
1. it's cool
2. it's probably stronger than the primary(i don't have it)
2. the destroyer upgrade

[KaraPenguin]

As someone who adores the Torcher and uses it regularly, there's a bit of a mix of ups and downs.

For starters, it's your primary slot. Against bugs not having a primary that can deal with shriekers can be a pain, and against bots not having good range on your primary is ROUGH. However it being your primary opens up your support weapon to be various anti-tank options (my personal go-to pairing being the quasar).

It does less damage than the flamethrower. Now this damage difference only really comes up against heavies, since anything small gets melted instantly regardless. However when it *does* come up, that damage is huge. Cooking chargers, titans, and impalers is MUCH faster with the flamethrower, and brood commanders can sometimes be dangerous in that the Torcher can't always kill them fast enough to prevent a breach.

The big difference between the two comes in the ammo capacity. The Torcher has much smaller canisters than the flamethrower, but it has a lot more of them. Generally speaking the flamethrower is something you use sparingly but once you do bring it out you're probably burning the whole canister, whereas the Torcher is your go-to option against anything at all times. Despite how small the capacity seems, the Torcher has a deceptively massive ammo pool. You can do entire missions only needing one resupply or ammo pickup to tie you over.

I don't think either truly outclasses the other to be completely honest. The Torcher is meant to be a slightly weaker but more consistent option since it's a primary, while the flamethrower is much more effective in crunch situations since it's a support weapon. They both have their uses and can be built around accordingly. And in the end, it really comes down to personal preference when you're picking which one to use.

[Hand's Hermit Permit]

Support weapon does more damage

And if that isn't enough for you, try burning bile spewers with torcher vs flamethrower. Flamethrower they die pretty fast, and you're dodging a little bile. With the torcher you're dodging bile all the time and it's extremely dangerous. Dumb even.

So no, they're not the same. Similar, yes, but not same.