I think film choice should be based upon what the photographer needs/intends to do with the film.
Sure, there are some purely technical considerations when moving to large format, especially if one is just learning tray development, loading holders, etc. So, I can see buying a box of very inexpensive film to practice all this with. I would even recommend sacrificing a few sheets to play with in the light, loading holders, shuffling in trays (or loading in your processing tank/holders - whatever you have).
When the techniques have been learned, however, then it's time to make a decision based on how and what you'll be shooting.
Keep in mind, that LF often requires a slower shutter speed than other formats if you want lots of depth of field. Having the camera on a tripod would seem to take care of this, but it doesn't compensate for subject movement. If you plan on shooting where the wind is blowing things around or the waves are moving or people are moving or whatever, you may find that a faster film than what you would choose for a smaller format will be necessary. FWIW, I don't normally take slower than Tri-X (rated at E.I. 250) with me into the field. I tried T-Max 100 (shot at E.I. 80) for a while, but simply couldn't use it as much as I needed due to subject movement problems.
OTOH, if your subjects are going to be really motionless, then use the slowest, finest-grain film you can get away with. It's really the same compromise you make with any format, just "on steroids" a bit due to the slower shutter speeds used in LF.
Another consideration is simply the characteristics of the films you are considering. Slower film and T-Max/Delta films have less grain, but grain isn't as much of an issue with 4x5 until you print larger than 11x14. Tonal rendering, film toe and shoulder, reciprocity characteristics and the like are often very different from film to film. 320Tri-X, for example, has a long sweeping toe that can render a lot of detail down into the shadows, but at the expense of shadow separation. TMax400 has a much straighter toe, which dumps the shadows more quickly, but gives you greater contrast between the values that are recorded. Ilford films have their own characteristics as well. Delta and TMax films have generally better reciprocity characteristics than "conventional" films, as does Fuji Acros. If you plan on doing lots of low-light/night shooting, then one of them may be for you.
There aren't that many B&W films out there in 4x5 any more, so do your homework a bit, pick one, or maybe two, films to test and work with and go from there. FWIW, I've tested out Tri-X, TMY, TMX and use them all now. I don't the Ilford films for the simple reason that I just don't have the time at the moment to do the tests I need to start using them. I'm sure they are good films too, but I've been getting good results from the Kodak products for years now and feel at home with them. However, if I were starting out I would likely try an Ilford product (e.g. HP-5 instead of Tri-X) just because of the price difference. Again, you need to decide.
In the end, the exact film you use is much less important than what you point your camera at.
Have fun,
Doremus
