I like the first chapter. You're past the exposition of the prologue and into some actual human characters. (You address elsewhere why the prologue's characters are intentionally left vague.) Too early in the characters' development to say whether I'll like them or not, except for Eddrick, who comes into the story fully battle-scarred and probably as developed as he'll get. That whole scene draws so deeply from the "grizzled commander addressing green recruits" routine that I can't help but imagine Eddrick as
the Soldier from Team Fortress 2. But it's a fun scene.
Really not much happens plot-wise, which is fine as we're still establishing the characters, so I'll address two points of writing. First, some of your sentences feel over-extended. This was true of the prologue as well. For example:
The sun peeked over the mountains, washing the rolling hills which transitioned into the vast grasslands of the Great Grass in light.
It's not wrong per se, but "which transitioned into the vast grasslands of the Great Grass" is a really long phrase to separate "washing the rolling hills ... in light." It makes me read over the sentence a second time just to make sure there
wasn't a mistake. You do something similar with parenthetical remarks:
At the city's center sat the nobles and the churches (which began ringing their choir of bells to the tune of "Bless Us, Oh Mother," welcoming in the new day), carved into the side of one of the small mountains on the outskirts of the mountain chain.
When I get to the word "carved," I have to retrace my steps all the way back to figure out
what was "carved into the side of one of the small mountains on the outskirts of the mountain chain" (surely not the bells?). You try to fit so much detail into each sentence that it occasionally interrupts the flow of the sentence, compelling the careful reader to go back to make sure they read it correctly.
The stars, which hung so high above the land, sparkled and shined like a thousand shards of a shattered diamond, scattered across the melancholic, black sky with such an artistic, elegant design, that it painted the heavens with a stroke of wonder and delight.
This is a long sentence with a lot of adjectives separated by a lot of commas--again, not incorrect (except for the comma after "design"). But I feel if you got rid of two commas it would flow better: "The stars, which hung so high above the land, sparkled and shined like a thousand shards of a shattered diamond, scattered across the melancholic black sky with such an artistic, elegant design that it painted the heavens with a stroke of wonder and delight." It's still a long sentence, but I find it easier to follow.
Sometimes it has nothing to do with the sentence's length or construction. Take the following:
Bastion turned his head slightly toward Edward, enough to look at his friend from the corner of his eye while minding the road before him.
There is nothing wrong with this sentence grammatically, and it doesn't make the reader second-guess its meaning. It's perfectly fine the way it is. But I still wonder if it's worth the latter 2/3rds of the sentence justifying an action ("Bastion turned his head slightly toward Edward") that doesn't need to be justified.
This leads into my second point, which is that you still seem to be over-explaining certain things in your story. Here is the introduction of Bastion.
"Nice going, Edward," his neighboring soldier, a young man named Sebastian (Bastion to his friends), Edward's oldest and closest friend, cracked, chuckling softly.
We've again got a confusing amount of detail in a sentence--try reading this section alone: "his neighboring soldier, a young man named Sebastian (Bastion to his friends), Edward's oldest and closest friend, cracked[.]" The space between the subject (his neighboring soldier") and verb ("cracked") is filled with three separate bits of information, and it just feels clunky. Equally important, do we need to be
told that Bastion is Edward's oldest and closest friend? Is that not information we could just as easily and more naturally pick up from their interactions in the story?
"Whatever," Edward mumbled, squirming free from his friend's grip and placing a foot between himself and his best friend. As much as Edward liked Bastion and was thankful to have him as his friend, the guy just didn't know how to shut up sometimes. Despite that, Edward knew his friend's intentions were good, and he simply was trying to cheer him up.
This is the sort of interaction that informs us what the relationship between Bastion and Edward is really like, but it feels like you're over-selling it with the insistence that they are
friends. The interaction should be enough to let us know who they are.
Without a word, Edward walked to Bastion and embraced him. He finally understood him; he understood why he acted the way he did. All the jokes, the cockiness, how he never took anything seriously. It was because Bastion was just as scared as he was. "It's alright, Bass," he said, trying to hold back tears of his own. Bastion wept silently on his friends shoulder, having lost complete control of the emotions he had kept bottled up. "We're all scared, Bass. We're all scared."
The bolded sentences (all interior monologue) are not necessary. If Edward has figured it out, trust that the audience has as well. Your writing is good enough that you can spend less time justifying the characters' actions and more time describing them, and let the audience come up with their own interpretation.
I'll read the second (and last?) chapter and then try to give my thoughts on the piece as a whole.