I know that the scenarios are meant to force one to build a balanced force. That's cool. But I would like to play a tourney where folks just line up on the Field of Mars with armies built to showcase their factions' unique strengths. Instead, what we get as a result are balanced, ready-for-anything builds are armies that lose some of their character.
This is true, to some extent, and it is largely by design. It helps prevent huge mismatches between factions that excel in one particular; if all the scenarios played to a given strength like this, you'd see two things: 1) a heavy number of lists using the factions that perform best for the scenarios, and 2) that the factions that perform it best will be the big winners of the tournament. By including a diverse set of scenarios (at least as possibilities, even if you don't end up playing all of them), it helps level the playing field a bit. However, I'd disagree that the scenarios force you to build a particular way; rather, you are required to perform a risk-assesment of the situation. It is possible to play a list built to your faction's strengths, but doing so at the expense of performance in one or more scenarios could hurt you. On the other hand, playing to those strengths could produce a home-run in terms of a big victory in a scenario your list is tailored for.
Case in point, last year for RCon I showed up with 3 tournament lists, without a clue as to which I was going to play. Two of the lists were a bit more conservative, while the last was a risky combo. Ultimately, I chose one of the more conservative lists, tho the choice was largely based on what I felt like playing at the time. In hindsight, however, knowing the opponents that I faced for the games I played, the higher risk army would have probably scored better in the tournament.
I'm in the beginning stages of figuring out what I *might* play for RCon this year, and so far, I don't think any of them are cookie-cutter.