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.
Terpenes definitely make a difference, in both flavor and effect. Mycrene, the blue/grape terp, is known to be a pretty good painkiller even without THC. Caryophyllene is really good for antiinflammatory purposes. I've noticed Nerolidol always makes for more of a head high.
For the most part, weed is weed, but certain strains and terps really make a difference. I could definitely pick out Jack Herrer or Northern Lights in a blind test, but most other strains are indistinguishable because they're all hybrids anyways