It's often that cards are meant in a way the rules do not allow. Elektra is no exception. "Can attack players" is, as evil-bac said, normal for every players, and it has to be understood, as HC said, as if there were "no non-stunned visible characters". Both are right. Problem is:

So, actually Elektra cannot work because "can't attack directly" is tried to be overrided by "can attack directly" - the card, by literal rules, mustn't work.

BUT - you know how it's meant. HC said, that a bunch of words would be useless - he would have a problem with that. I do agree to that opinion - the card were useless if the rules would be followed literally.

So, cut it, have fun with a great card and stop becoming unnecessarily German :):):)

This is precisely why the rules about attack proposal don't use the word "can't;" they use "must" and "must not" so that they don't have to deal with 103.2.
I think you're right, in that I don't really know how productive this back and forth is going to be.

Logical. Thanks for pointing that out. Forget my post above.

Ultimately, it boils down to her card text allowing her to do something that would not normally be be allowed (attacking a player while other visible non-stunned characters are present). Thus, it is necessary for the card to read as such to bypass the normal gameplay rules.

Now, in the event that there are no visible non-stunned charachters, here card text would be useless as the player would be the only target anyway.