Hasn't it already been clarified that free attacks that come from free actions always happen?

I'm not seeing what the problem is.

No, they only always happen if the free action is nested inside another action. In this case, tail swipe is not nested it is independent. If the character already had a free action to make a close combat attack (flurry, charge, whatever) then they wouldn't be able to use tail swipe but for the -1 to attack it gives you.

Right. So Flurry is a Close Combat Action that gives you two attacks and Tail Swipe is a Free action that gives you an attack.

One was activated by a Close Combat action and the other by a Free Action.

Neither was activated by the same initial type of action.

No. It's been clarified that if you can use the power you can use all of the power, and if that means two free close combat actions leading to two "vanilla" close combat attacks that's allowed. The specific was non-free Charge and then Charge as a free action with no power or ability triggered by a close combat action: you can use both the free close combat actions to make "vanilla" close combat attacks.

This specifically is Lizard using Flurry, so he has made a close combat attack as a free action and then being able to be given a second free action to make a close combat attack via Tail Attack because the modifier in Tail Attack makes that close combat attack a different effect than the one in Flurry.

No. Flurry is a close combat action to make a close combat attack and then a close combat attack as a free action. Tail Attack is a close combat attack as a free action.

That doesn't matter at all. Based on what normalview said if Tail Swipe did not give the -1, you could not use it.

I think maybe I've just learned not to overcomplicate things since some recent new rulings.

LOL. I just want to be able to explain why the rules allow X and don't allow Y. Not "but that's not realistic" but "because it says this". And this one is causing me a headache, because I don't see the rules logic.

Obviously I disagreed with the lizard ruling, but if it is allowed I think you have to allow GCPD and Gordon.

Meh. I tend to not get worked up about a lot of the crazy scenarios that people cook up.

Sometimes people come up with some crazy rules exploits that I have never seen happen in an actual tournament.

That works for Charge, Running Shot, and Hypersonic Speed, but any special power with nested free actions, that didn't happen after or during a move, also wouldn't be allowed when a break away is failed.

Actually, after thinking about it some more, I would say it could be argued that charge and running shot are just establishing an order of events, and not creating a when/if condition.

It just bothers we we go to such great lengths to say why charge gets to do it twice, but multi-attack doesn't.
If you use multi-attack to give a free action to close combat attack, you can't do it twice, but you can with charge.

I'm sure that a difference can be found and argued about, but it's entirely hindsight based explanation, that only makes sense if you know that's where you are supposed to end up.

And what about with "Working Together"?

Can i declare:

1. Power Action to use Running Shot, i use the Free RCA to use P/PB.
2. Declare my Free RCA (Via WT) to make a Vanilla Atack.
3. Declare a Vanilla Attack (Via WT)

Is this correct?

That would be fine.