I would say that the rules do not "seem" to indicate a free attack from your enemy, they implicitly indicate your enemy gets a free attack. Per the Fighting Withdrawl (Backpedaling) rules on p. 254 (AS&SH 2nd Ed.):

"If, however, a combatant attempts to run away or flee from a hostile situation, he suffers a −2 AC penalty, and each adjacent enemy gains a free and immediate attack (see p. 242: Combat, attack modifiers). If chase is given, movement rates should be compared."

Seems pretty clear ... But, as always, defer to your GM's judgment on this.

So, for example:

So, assuming backpedaling/pursuit over at the same time: My lightly armored ranger wants to lure a heavily armored fighter in a trap where the party’s thief lies on wait to strike. My character elects to use his full move and simply defend. He backpedals 20 feet. The fighter pursues until 20 feet, his full movement. My character continues to backpedal, and the fighter gets an attack.

Assuming that the movement is separate: same scenario, but the fighter gets an attack because he moves second.

Assuming the fighter isn’t lured into the ruse: My character backpedals, the fighter elects not to pursue. He gets a free attack.

Other various scenarios: the fighter can follow the whole way, this altering his movement ability. The fighter /must/ follow, which means that my character must do the same thing without my consent to do so.

All in all, it does make sense since there seems to be a difference between backpedaling and actually fleeing. Fleeing from combat and incurring a -2 to AC and free attacks make sense—you’re turning your back, lowering your defenses leaving. But it explicitly says that when you backpedal, you’re still defending.

I understand that there advanced combat maneuvers (dodge, parry and block) that can be done with backpedaling, so maybe you’re right, but it seems weird to define two things of they are, in effect, the same thing.

Ah. That makes much more sense. And that’s how I read it. Thanks for ya’ll’s reply.

I have never used "Attacks of Opportunity".
To me, that is unrealistic unless the "retreater" drops his weapons and very much so does not defend himself.
Later editions, yuck, are heavy on the attack of opportunity. I think this is why people get confused so much on this topic.

Pelicanmeat wrote:

So, my group and I have been playing an AS&SH campaign for a little over a year, and the GM and I have had several extremely contentious arguments about the fighting withdrawal. It boils down to this: if using a fighting withdrawal, is the withdrawaing party subject to an attack of opportunity. The writing of the rule seems to indicate that a an attack on occurs when fleeing. But, please, settle this before the game breaks up.

What is this FLEEING!!!  Kill all the adjacent opponents, shake their blood from your sword, and only after a short pause to curse their ancestors move to the next enemy. 
 

DMPrata wrote:

OK, let’s assume the defender has a base 40 MV. He has three basic movement options to withdraw from combat:

He can backpedal 20 feet (×½ MV) and still attack (if his opponent chooses to keep pace).
He can backpedal 40 feet (full MV) and still defend (if his opponent chooses to keep pace), but can’t attack.
He can run 80 feet (×2 MV), accepting a –2 AC penalty and granting his opponent a free parting attack.

 
Is the “if his opponent chooses to keep pace” a free movement for the opponent that happens at the same time as the backpedal?

Thank you sir!