Is there a general consensus that an all-comers army should contain more skinks than saurus warriors? If not, what circumstances would benefit from more numerous SW? Please discuss, I'd be interested to hear both sides, cheers.
My current tournament list has 72 skinks and 90 (3x30) Saurus but our tournament scene has a lot of comped and restricted tournaments so the lists are generally very different from ETC or unrestricted tournament lists. It generally depends on what you enjoy playing. Lizardmen have always excelled at shoot and avoidance though so people tend to lean more towards skink heavy lists, as it's generally considered to be the stronger list. To answer your questions more directly: Skink based S&A lists is generally considered better all comers lists, often with 1 big block of Saurus and a ton of skinks. Light Slann can make the Saurus horde into a very competative choice, but it will probably never be a cookie cutter build unless the 8th book comes with some pretty dramatic changes.
I think it depends on playstyle really. I have two units of 24 saurus in my army (and a unit of 20 TG if that counts) to go with 22 ranked skinks, 10 skirmishers and 6 charmeleons, so I have more saurus than skinks. In general, skinks are more of a support choice and require more tactics to use.
Like Strewart, I usually have more Saurus than Skinks in my army too. Two blocks of 25 or either 1 @ 25 and the other @30 equipped with hand weapons and shields. Then I usually have 2 small blocks of skink skirmishers at 10 each and a unit of chameleons of between 6-7. Also is a unit of skrox at 3 krox with 24-30 skinks - when I play that my ratio of skinks to saurus are about even. But I prefer to have more Saurus than Skinks in my army. - Lord Cedric
I love my skinks. To me, it makes sense to have more skinks. I would probably use skrox units to make up the majority of my skinks. Skirmishers are just not as good as the cohorts to me. If I do take skirmishers, I will pay the points for the javelin and shield.