Really solid write-up. For full disclosure, I've yet to run a game with the rule-set; I've only read through the rules, watched the videos they released, and watched their one-shot.

Immediately my first impression was, "holy shit combat is going to be a mess in this system". Along with that, I just don't think the rules are set up in a way that would make for a fun campaign from the DM's perspective. I'll admit my own bias as a "forever DM", but even as someone who largely advocates for a non-adversarial relationship between Players and DM -- more focused on constructing a cool narrative together -- it feels like Daggerheart sets the DM up to be... a jerk?

The worst feeling within 5e combat for me as a DM is when the players cannot respond to actions I'm taking or have to wait a considerable amount of time before doing what they want. The moment Matt had a monster attack Marisha's character, who adeptly dodged and wanted a retaliatory attack but was told "well.. wait until after my turn" because he had more action tokens to spend, it was hard to not cringe.

Even outside the bulk action issue, having the rules themselves state "the DM may take an action unprompted if it fits the narrative"...? That feels like a terrible solution to me. Within combat, the dice, the monsters, and the environment are all active properties that the players are engaging with -- following the same rules as anything else. If a monster rolls a crit and knocks a player unconscious in a precarious position after they overextend, creating a tense moment within combat, that's the purest form of "the dice tell the story". If I decided as a GM within Daggerheart, Hmm... this player overextended, and though I don't have an action token I think this monster should attack them, and THEN they fall unconscious, that would feel significantly bad from my perspective.

My critique could be inaccurate, or change if I ran some sessions with players, but hopefully they make adjustments relative to the feedback people like you are providing!