be nice if this class could get some love and be oin an equal footing with the others

It would be good if they made it a base class, though it's a possibility they may not for space reasons.

Of course, the new rules (especially the crit changes and spell lists) imply many if not all classes are going to need reworking. So if they don't include artificer then it's going to be left out in the cold until some later book, which would be annoying!

I don't think we've had any confirmation; but considering Jeremy Crawford has been heavily RPing the Artificer Vi in the Acquisitions Incorporated liveshows that he DMs I would hope that Artificer will be included.

Plus it really needs to be made a core class if they're ever to release new sub-classes for it, as Wizards don't like books requiring other non-core books; this is most likely why the only new sub-class for Artificer was given in Tasha's Cauldron because it reprinted the entire class.

I really hope it does. Not being in the PHB has basically resulted in the class being forgotten since its introduction. Which is a shame as artificer subclasses are so impactful and unique.

I hope so.

Considering in the recently (as of this post) release "Experts" UA, the Artificer is only mentioned in a side bar and in an interview Crawford mentions the Artificer as a example of how they can use the new class groupings to apply features to new classes, it seems likely that the Artificer will not be a core class. 

I hope so because the subclasses that came from Tasha's need some major errata for clarity - looking at you Armorer...

I will say that Artificers already largely "feel" like the OneD&D classes we've seen already. As a half-caster, they start the game with magic which they prepare, instead of having it be a second level feature or needing to know spells.

I think the only thing that isn't in line with what we're seeing in the UA playtest is how the class prepares spells, since the playtest spell preparation is quite a bit more restrictive. 

The lack of Artificer in the UA expert section I think means WotC currently do not intend to put Artificer in the new PHB how ever I will be suggesting they do.  Unlike blood hunter which is a "Wildemount" class (that DMs can add to their setting) with Artificer being in Tasha's I think it must be considered a core class.

There will inevitably need ot be some houseruling melding one D&D and 5e features, for example if you play an eloquence bard (assuming one D&D bard is as the UA) , how does your bardic inspiration work? what spell list do you get?, how does it combine with a one D&D race?   These questions will be made more difficult if there is no updating of the rules for the artificer.  

I definitely think it should be in one dnd

I'm fairly certain in one of the recent interviews about the classes UA, they confirmed that the Artificer wouldn't be in the PHB.

Quote from TwoFaceTony >>

I'm fairly certain in one of the recent interviews about the classes UA, they confirmed that the Artificer wouldn't be in the PHB.

What's frustrating is Crawford gives zero explanation why the Artificer isn't planned for inclusion, but it'd be such a huge mistake as it just means it'll be ignored except by books that republish it, which means it'll be a second class… class, for yet another edition. But it'd be silly for them to do this, as it's one of only two official classes that are Intelligence based.

Hopefully if enough people point this out in their feedback they'll reconsider, as it's just bewildering why they'd decide to make such a popular class disadvantaged from the start of OneD&D. You'd think they'd have learned from its introduction and the need to reprint it just to add one sub-class to its pretty meagre (albeit really fun) four.

I think Ill try adding an extra note at the end of every survey saying "Include the Artificer in the base PHB."  Not sure what good it will do, but maybe if they see the same comment pop up enough it will at least let them know that its inclusion is desired.