That's correct parrot, its essentially all about intention and timing.
Fit, healthy 70 year olds helping out with house deposits out of savings and within normal tax thresholds and not appearing to be deliberately disposing of assets with the intention of avoiding future care home fees, who then experience an entirely unpredictable stroke a few years later = not a problem.
70 year olds (although age is to an extent irrelevant) with multiple health problems and already needing a bit of support at home, selling up to go into rented accommodation or live with family and 'gifting' large sums of money to various relatives = potential problem.
The thing is though that people who do this and think they are gaming the system usually buy into two misconceptions. The first being that as they get older they will inevitably end up in a care home. The vast majority of people don't, so reorganising finances purely for this reason and making yourself vulnerable financially in later years is generally pointless anyway.
The second misconception is that even if they do end up in a care home they will receive exactly the same level of choice and the same standard of care from the council as someone who is paying for the care themselves. In reality the state will actually only pay for the most basic level of care required, and only at the point of last resort, and the 'last resort' threshold for most councils is very high.
It may look like the person in the room next door who is state funded gets the exact same service, but in reality they have nowhere near the same amount of choice as someone who is able to fund it themselves. They won't be able to fund all of the 'extras' that care homes can offer to make later years a little bit better, like trips out, haircuts, new clothes, hand massages, newspapers, a glass of wine at dinner etc etc. The people funding themselves can choose which home they want to go to and when they want to go.