IC 35-41-3-2 is very clear.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
There is no "you can only use deadly force in self-defense requirement" in that statute, in fact the statute specifically states that deadly force is reasonable force under the specified conditions spelled out in IC 35-41-3-2.
No.
"Deadly force" IS NOT automatically equated with "reasonable force" in the above IC. It just says that DF COULD be considered RF under certain circumstances.
Look at that small word "IF".
You are authorized to use deadly force *IF* it is reasonable to believe it is NECESSARY. NECESSARY being the operative word in the above IC.
You can try all you want to justify the killing of a person under ALL circumstances if they break into your house but the LAW doesn't agree with you.
Thus ends the english lesson for today children.