Rules as written, the action selected by the Great Sword wielder seems irrelevant. If their enemy is attacking or defending, they get no helping dice.
However, I’m not sure this is Rules as INTENDED. Because as written, this suddenly makes the Great Sword the single safest weapon to feint with, so long as you’re fighting more than one enemy they’re now limited in how much damage they can do on a counter attack. It’s easy enough to explain away narratively, but much of torchbearer is deliberately vague and puts the onus on the individual tables to come up with the narrative reason as to how or why a rule functions the way it does.
At our table our current narrative reasoning is that a Great Sword is a pretty deadly/terrifying weapon and that you’re able to come up with a combination of isolating/intimidating a member of the enemy group with it.
The narrative of whatever situation the player is in is always important as well (such as tight halls giving the +1D to defending with a spear or an open area letting the spear be thrown), but I feel it could be easily justified or annulled depending on whatever the GM was looking to do. A group of goblins attacking a feinting Great Sword user? Sure, the other goblins are kept at bay while only one is bold enough to charge the Great Sword user.
RAW I would have an extremely difficult time saying it doesn’t simply always apply. However the Great Sword being by far the most risk free weapon to feint with doesn’t really feel RAI. The intended rules for the Great Sword feel like it’s supposed to be excellent at maneuvering and attacking (as it was in 1e). But with the current edition, the Great Sword is actually also amazing at defending (giving the enemy -2D is essentially as good as a shield, provided the enemy is attacking or defending!) AND is the safest weapon to feint with. If that’s RAI, I have no problem coming up with narrative reasons as to why that works, and I’m always more interested in RAI than RAW.