I gather THC:CBD:CBN ratios can result in slightly differing highs, but none of that is linked in any consistent or reliable way to strains, right? It's my understanding those factors are far more linked to how the cannabis was grown and cared for than the plant's exact genetics.
And terpenes are not known to be psychoactive, yet a lot of people say they can influence the high to be either more sedating or stimulating. Is that true? My gut feeling is that's also bullshit and they only effect the smell and taste. I could see an argument that they indirectly influence the high in the same way your set and setting influences it, but certainly not in any consistent, reliable way, and especially not between different people.
My experience with weed, regardless of the terpene profile, strain, or indica/sativa has been that it's all basically the same high and there is not a soul on this Earth who could smoke some flower in a blind test and tell you what the strain is or even just if it's an indica or sativa.
My sense is that the composition of cannabis does matter, that the effects seem to vary a lot by the individual, and that the people marketing it or even just trying to consistently describe strains and their properties are fairly wrong most of the time. Taken together, this tends to mean people often don't feel the variation in effects they're told they should feel.
Example: I have never had a strain that made me feel energetic and creative. Not once. No matter how hyped the strain is or what the weed sellers say.