I’m deeply interested in how this thread develops.
I ran one quickly-ended PbP of this system, and I definitely felt like I was at great straits to even touch my PCs, let alone hurt them. True, one of the PCs not only was a “combat monster” but one I had allowed the Skill Talent General, resulting in him leading a small party of Elite warriors. My own fault, since I allowed it? Perhaps. But I typically prefer players to build what they want.
Just started a face-to-face game and have run one true session. Yes, the PCs are awesome (though the players don’t seem to know this yet, not yet having fully groked the rules). But I didn’t find it mattering so much, since the focus of the main excitement entailed the PCs rescuing a victim from ravening ghouls/jackal-men. The point was that the PCs weren’t so much interested in “wading hip deep in the blood of their enemies” as they were in achieving their objection and getting (by Hades!) away.
Incidentally, after a few encounters with these creatures, for this last one I simply dumped a handful of markers—representing foes—onto the tactical battle mat. This is a weird game in that the GM serves as a traditional GM—in other words, doing whatever she wants—but also has these things called Doom spends, such as using them to bring new Minions into a scene. I did it one time, and one of my players (who runs a 1e game for me and others) asked, “What was that about? In old school games the DM just does what he wants.” This is true of 2d20 too, I know. But it’s a curious animal in which GMs enjoy both GM fiat and resources for when they feel like justifying their decisions.
All this said, I enjoy the Minion/Toughened/Nemesis rules. I think I’ll make them work well, and I’m curious about how these rules will influence the development of my campaign. I feel free to throw anything at my PCs (including handfuls of enemies). I see the criticism as valid, though.