Personally... I don't think it's all that "jaw dropping" body. In my line of work (and for quite big number of other sport shooters/PJs), moving from APS-H to FF is not really plus. This means all of a sudden 300/2.8 needs to be 400/2.8, 500/4 should be 600/4 etc. If you don't count money involved into this, think about extra weight you need to carry around. Anyone who had "pleasure" to work on hill with 400/2.8 instead of 300/2.8 will know what this means.
Next to that... what else was improved? New af system? Let's rather wait before we all explode out of happiness. 1dmk3 had "all new af system" and we know what was result of it. Once they moved back, to "old, non-impressive" af system with mk4, we finally got working af again. So personally I will wait until I see it, and only then jump around all happy.
18MP? Fine, but nothing all that special. On the other side, I agree it's more then enough. I never had problems with 16MP on current 1dmk4, neither with 10MP of mk3, 8MP on mk2, or 4MP on original 1d (even though nowadays 4MP is really too little for serious work). If they decided FF is way to go, they should do something similar to what Nikon did. FF with 20+MP, and option to switch to APS-H with 16 or even 18MP.
What else? 14fps? Nice, but it requires mirror lock, so I don't think this will be really useful for most of us. In normal mode it's "just" 12fps, which means almost same as current one.
ISO 200k? Cool, but seriously... who needs that? I agree high iso is cool, especially when shooting sport. But I have never been using more then 6000 on my mk4, and we all managed to survive shooting for world best and biggest agencies and newspapers with old bodies (even film year ago) when iso 1600 was skyhigh. So this thing sure sounds cool, but when it comes to usage, it's nothing all that necessary.