Interesting on the linked thread... I didn't consider that the move action couldn't be given if he already had 2 action tokens (even though it would become free... assuming it works as it did 3 years ago), but I've got to say that I had already E-mailed the rules team over the weekend, too, just to double check.

interested to know the outcome of your email

And here it is, consistent with the Pred-X ruling:

Good to know, but a bit of a bummer (especially if you have the red ring on him). :-s
And yes, Dragon was right. Not the first or last time, I know.

Doesn't make sense.
If it counts as declaring a non-free action, why does it not subtract 1 from my action total?
Why doesn't he get an action token?

Token is assigned as actions resolve, and as it resolves it is free action.

Might subtract from your action total, good point.

I think it makes perfect sense. It's all about timing. When the Move action is turned into a free action that non-free action goes back to your Action Total.

However the "beginning of turn"-phase ended the second you gave him a move action to activate "GET IN YOUR FACE". And when it has ended it has ended. It does not get reinstated just because the type of the action that ended it changes.

But the action from your action pool does get reinstated? Why reinstate one and not the other?

You would declare it as a move action, as people have stated, and then later on after the action had resolved, he wouldn't get a token nor be restricted from doing any other none free action if it became a free action.

If I declare a non-free action, does it count as "giving" a non-free action? I would say they are synonymous. And if you are arguing that it does count as a declaration of a non-free action, then he should not be able to declare another non-free action that turn.

Here's the difference in why you can be given a non-free action after his move action, but the move action still ends the beginning of your turn.
Here's what ends the beginning of your turn:
Free action is defined as:
So, the move action is activated by a move action, so it ends the beginning of your turn.
Guy was given an action activated move action, but by the time the action resolves, he was given a free action.

Show me where the rules define that is how the word "given" is used. To me, the action declared is what was given to them.

It's in the power.

GET IN YOUR FACE: Guy Gardner can use Charge. Give Guy Gardner a move action, and if he ends his move adjacent to an opposing character, the move action counts as a free action instead, and he uses Battle Fury until that character is KO'd.

It's actually in the PG as stated in post #18, not the rulebook. FWIW, I agree with you that it SHOULD be allowed as a free action as it counts like a free action in that specific case... but it's already been ruled not to.
It was also noted in the thread linked in post #13 that if you had 3 actions and this move was your 4th action, you couldn't do it because it starts as a non-free action and turns into a free action during the action (I take it as being when he becomes adjacent to the opponent, but I didn't ask for clarification).
I think it's weird and doesn't make complete sense, but it has already been ruled and I can't argue with that short of making a house-rule. :-s

If a ruling is unclear and illogical, I won't house rule a different answer, but I sure as heck will argue for an explanation as to why that is the answer and how it makes any logical sense. Asking for a better explanation doesn't seem like an unreasonable demand.