There's more to these colors than your short summary says. In particular it doesn't say what colors can't do.
White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various kinds are a common theme.
Blue doesn't deal with combat buffs. It would rather change the rules and make them irrelevant.
Black, I would say it's more about decay, death and atrophy than outright destruction. It's the worst anti-artifact, anti-enchantment color in the game and can affect them only indirectly. Black has very few buffs, it's a very negative color. Win at all costs!
Red can't affect enchantments. Like fire, it often burns (sacrifices) something to keep going. It can't last long.
Green is exceptionally bad at destruction and dealing damage. Its boons are often individual in contrast to white's, which is morel like a jungle than a society. Very early M:tg had cards like Stormseeker, they are notably absent in modern M:tg.
One of best ways to realize how much negative space there is in M:tg is to play Shandalar, the ancient RPG set in the world of Magic. You will see very many off-color cards.
> White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various kinds are a common theme.
White also has a thing for destroying creatures engaged in combat, which is both an extension of its rulesetting ("fighting is against the rules, and if you break the rules, you die") and its preference for pacifism (enforcing non-violence via harsh punishments). White is also the only color besides Blue that gets counterspells, typically with a taxing condition (e.g. "counter target spell unless its controller pays {2}"). White, like any responsible government, collects taxes after all.
> Green is exceptionally bad at destruction and dealing damage. Its boons are often individual in contrast to white's, which is morel like a jungle than a society. Very early M:tg had cards like Stormseeker, they are notably absent in modern M:tg.
And when Green does get to deal damage, it's through creatures. It gets straight-up buffs such as good ol' Giant Growth, plus effects where creatures get to deal damage to targets equal to their power (nicknamed "one-sided fight", after the "fight" keyword where two creatures damage each other equal to their power).
I like your point (and wish I had more than one upvote), but I want to recast it in terms of color theory. Specifically, let's look at each color in terms of not being able to do what its two opposite colors can do. And, of course, there are counterexample cards to all of this, but the general outlines are certainly real in the game design. I'll also mention the Ravnica guilds for each pair; each guild can be thought of as exploring the negative design space hollowed out by each color.
White is opposite red and black, giving it the gap of high-risk play. White cannot make opportunities, but must straightforwardly initiate combat and exploit superior layouts on the battlefield. Both red and black have many useful instant spells which give them options that white doesn't have. The Ravnica guild is Rakdos, which is oriented around riskily playing an entire hand quickly, and also around destroying everything except enchantments.
Blue is opposite green and red, and indeed blue is missing the useful buffs in green and (to a lesser extent) in red. Blue is also missing the overlap between green and red, which is direct destruction of lands and artifacts. Blue represents not just knowledge, but abandoning nature in favor of libraries and cities; green and red remind blue of the power of wild nature. The Ravnica guild is Gruul, which is oriented around putting +1/+1 buffs onto friendly creatures.
Black does have more of a win-at-all-costs feeling than other colors, sacrificing library, battlefield, hand, and even graveyard for victory. Opposite white and green, black lacks health buffs and turn-over-turn permanent growth, and isn't rewarded for having a healthy zoo. The white+green Ravnica guild, Selesnya, is oriented around giving discounts for new creatures by tapping existing creatures, and making copies of creatures.
Red is across from white and blue. Like you say, enchantments are a bit of a puzzle for red. White uses enchantments to defend and protect, while blue uses them to surprise and misdirect; red has no way to deal with or emulate this. The Ravnica guild is Azorius, oriented around spells which change their behavior depending on when and how they are played.
Finally, green is across from blue and black. Blue and black have in common a willingness to sacrifice capability and knowledge in exchange for power. Green is gradual and lacks ways to trade away the library or sacrifice creatures. And the final guild, Dimir, is oriented around sacrificing cards to search the library; later, it expanded to also include sacrificing (both!) libraries directly.
I'm honestly kind of amazed at how well-designed all of this is. I suppose that surviving the test of time does imply some sort of quality design, but this is remarkable.
> I'm honestly kind of amazed at how well-designed all of this is. I suppose that surviving the test of time does imply some sort of quality design, but this is remarkable.
I'm amazed more people don't copy the idea (rather than straight-up ripping off the colors). M:tg is so interesting because of how well-defined colors are. Because they're defined, colors truly have a personality, and - crucially - play different.
For a straight ripoff check Master of Magic too. Very cheap on GOG. It's a Civilization 1 clone with tech tree/progression replaced by spells! Complete with common/uncommon/rare/very rare tiers. The system is so inspired by Magic colors it hurts. But incidentally, it's brilliant! In normal Civ games, tech tree is super boring because of many filler steps and boring +1 bonuses. Even otherwise great Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri suffers from this. But because each step in discrete (each step is a spell!), you get something concrete each time you complete research. The game also has extensive city build-up and a combat system that inspired Heroes of Might and Magic serries. The game has many design and balance flaws, and without the unofficial Insecticide patch by kyrub (who deserves eternal praise) it's extremely buggy. But they did something very, very right as game developers keep trying to clone Master of Magic. The game doesn't care much for balance, but more for very flashy and ambitious ideas.
Another accidental bit of brilliance came from memory limitation. Computers at the time didn't have enough RAM to support large maps. So instead they made 2 planes connected by magical towers. Very heavily guarded. The other plane has unique minerals, 4 unique races, magic roads that are instant travel, very magic everything (2x magic node output too). In late game, hell often breaks loose when POWERFUL computer civilizations emerge. You can also try to break into it early and loot it, but it's very risky.
White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various kinds are a common theme.
Blue doesn't deal with combat buffs. It would rather change the rules and make them irrelevant.
Black, I would say it's more about decay, death and atrophy than outright destruction. It's the worst anti-artifact, anti-enchantment color in the game and can affect them only indirectly. Black has very few buffs, it's a very negative color. Win at all costs!
Red can't affect enchantments. Like fire, it often burns (sacrifices) something to keep going. It can't last long.
Green is exceptionally bad at destruction and dealing damage. Its boons are often individual in contrast to white's, which is morel like a jungle than a society. Very early M:tg had cards like Stormseeker, they are notably absent in modern M:tg.
One of best ways to realize how much negative space there is in M:tg is to play Shandalar, the ancient RPG set in the world of Magic. You will see very many off-color cards.