I was kind of in the middle on 4E Powers there. I understood the idea, and got it, but in practice I did not enjoy parsing the options and making anything out of it. But, yeah, that's about the run of it.
As much as I loved 4e, and still look back to it for inspiration quite a lot, I preferred essentials/e+ 4e to PHB1 4e, for much the same reason. I can pick executioner, and I'm only picking my daily poisons from there, or I can pick Hunter or Scout, and I'm mostly just picking utility powers and wilderness knacks. Having every single damn thing be a dropdown with 100+ options is exhausting.
I suspect we might be operating on some different definitions.
And there it is. In most of publishing, board games and TTRPGs outside of D&D included, that is pretty much the definition of an "Edition." D&D has a history of abusing the term, though, so they may not want to use a loaded term, I'll admit. So I would consider a completely compatible overhaul based on consolidation of the previous ten years of options and development a "new Edition" de facto whether they designate it as 6E de jure or not.
If discussing DnD, I'm going to use the definition that the game has historically used.
DnD "edition" is more like "version", where in board games it more often just means "update with patch fixes and errata".
Whatever term you want to use, 2024 isn't going to see a new version of dnd that isn't 5e. It's going to be fully compatible, meaning you can use post 2024 subclasses with 2014 classes, what a feat is won't change, general rules won't change, the big rules expansion books
at the very least will be wholly playable alongside and in the same character as the 2024 core books and post anniversary expansions to the game.
No conversion required.
Could I be proven wrong? Sure! Anything could happen. They could secretly have already built a revolutionary new version of DND that makes 4e seem traditional, too, but I doubt it. I've seen no evidence, anywhere, that I'm likely to be wrong, though.