There is a HUGE difference between something effective and something legitimate. Many things are effective, few are legitimate. The test is simple: if it works well on a human competitor under similar conditions, then it's legitimate.
This is not correct, a strategy's legitimacy is always determined by it's end goal. Nothing else matters.
For example: If I wanted to finish the campaign as fast as possible (ie. speedrun) then a lot of what you just described as "cheese" would in fact be the optimal strategy's to use. And had I tried to use "multiplayer tournament tactics" in a speedrun I would have been laughed off the stage.
Beating Alexander by stacking barrels is, whether you like it or not, definitely a legitimate strategy if your end goal is to defeat him as easily as possible within the context of the campaign. Saying its not legitimate because it wouldn't work in a tournament setting makes no sense, because you are just cherry-picking standards by which you judge the strategy out of personal preference. Therefore, the only objective way to judge the legitimacy of any strategy is to see how well it achieves it's stated end goal.
